President Obama Targets Gun Show Loophole in New Executive Actions

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Time

Maya Rhodan

After months of calling on Congress to act on guns to no avail, President Obama announced executive actions on Monday that would require more gun sellers to obtain licenses and conduct background checks, including those who sell firearms online and at gun shows.

The action aims to fix the so-called gun show loophole, which allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without undergoing a background check.

The new rules require people who are “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms,” to obtain licenses and conduct background checks on buyers. That requirement has not applied to people who “make occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms,” according to the ATF.

The White House says the action still won’t apply to those who buy and trade as collectors, but it will apply to people who represent themselves as dealers, sell firearms shortly after acquiring them, or sell firearms in their original packaging.

FULL story at link.


Martin H. Simon—Corbis
President Obama meets with Loretta Lynch (left), and other officials to discuss what executive actions he can take to curb gun violence, in Washington on Jan. 4, 2016.

Read more: http://time.com/4166989/gun-control-obama-executive-action/

---

Bernie Sanders Defends Obama's Planned Executive Action On Gun Control: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141302624

[Skittles]

1. OMG HE IS GRABBING OUR GUNS

*channeling a paranoid gun humper*

[salib]

2. Anything that can be done is better than what we have now.

[Duckhunter935]

4. problems are

It will not be much. Dealers at gun shows are already required by federal law to perform background checks. Same for Internet sales that cross a state line. I hear he is asking for more ATF agents, a good thing. He will also ask for more and better checks at dealers, another good thing.

If he would open NICS for private sales as it is now banned would also help.

[salib]

11. So there is no such thing as the "Gun show loophole"?

Or are you simply carefully trying to redefine the issue by saying "Dealers at gun shows are already required by federal law to perform background checks"?

Afterall, the article states: "The action aims to fix the so-called gun show loophole, which allows people to buy firearms at gun shows without undergoing a background check". Sounds like what you wrote. How are they different?

[Duckhunter935]

14. there is no gun show loophole

It is a private sale exemption between two people residing in the same state. All dealers by federal law are required to perform federal background checks, even at gun shows. The propaganda has been strong with that term. Same with Internet sales. I bet most people think you could just order a firearm over the internet from say bass pro shop and have it shipped to you without a background check.

[salib]

19. So, from what you say

it appears that this action by Obama does indeed require background checks for transactions that were otherwise not requiring background checks. Am I wrong?

[Duckhunter935]

24. you are indeed incorrect.

The only thing that may possibly change is the definition of a dealer they adopt. Any FFL holder must by federal law as it is today must conduct a federal background check, even at gun shows or the trunk of his or her car. That is the law NOW. Same for Internet sales that cross state lines.

[salib]

30. However, doesn't this change and broaden the group of people who

must conduct background checks. According to the article: "would require more gun sellers to obtain licenses and conduct background checks, including those who sell firearms online and at gun shows."

You point out that "Any FFL holder must by federal law as it is today must conduct a federal background check, even at gun shows or the trunk of his or her car". However, it appears from the article that more such sellers must be FFL holders.

So, again, I ask isn't it the case that in fact this will change (broaden, increase) the number of transactions that require a background check?

[Duckhunter935]

36. it depends if he changes the definition of dealer

As I have stated several times to you and will once again. Please read carefully ok.

Per existing federal law now, any FFL and those are dealers must conduct a federal background check even at at gun shows, today, now, existing law as it is today. Even at gun shows today dealers must perform NICS background checks. Is that plain enough and clear? Same for Internet transactions that cross state lines. Federal law NOW, TODAY, EXISTING LAW.

Two people, that are not dealers can sell a firearm without a background check if they both reside within that same state. At a gun show or In a parking lot or in a house somewhere within that state. That is the PRIVATE SALE EXEMPTION. As I said before there is no GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE.

The executive action may adjust the definition of a dealer so it is possible a small number of people will have to get an FFL if they are reclassified to be a dealer.


The President would do better to open NICS for private sales as it is barred now.

[DashOneBravo]

83. Private sales

Are the gun show loophole.

You can set up a booth at gun shows and sell weapons from your "private" collection without a background check.

[pablo_marmol]

90. Problem with your "argument" is that private sales can occur **ANYWHERE**.

Not just at gun shows. Ergo, no "gun show" loophole. It's a state-by-state issue. In my state - CA - background checks are required at gun shows because background checks are required for all gun sales, including private sales. Some other states, by contrast, allow private sales sans background checks at gun shows because private sales generally are specifically exempted from the background check requirement. Again -- no "loophole" because private sellers are simply abiding by the law, and there is no "work around" taking place.....which is what defines a loophole.

The descriptor "gun show loophole" is demonstrably assinine ---- and was created over gun restriction supporters' vexation of the "celebration of all things guns" that gun shows represent to them. As such --- culture war. Pure and simple. And I'll submit that anyone who doesn't believe that culture war comes with a large political price attached is excruciatingly naive.

If you're unhappy that private sales can go through sans background checks, fight to change the law. But don't tell obvious, stupid lies by claiming that there is a "gun show loophole".

[Duckhunter935]

96. thank you

I do not know why this is so hard for people to understand. I know they are not stupid. It is actually very simple. Private sales can happen anywhere, not just at gun shows. And you are correct and I was wrong in my earlier post, it is not even a loophole. It is how the law is designed to function.

[DashOneBravo]

103. Not arguring

And I'm a gun guy, was NRA certified instructor, shot IPSC when it was jut getting started and have a carry permit. I'm pro 2nd A

You guys play word games all you want but I've been to enough gun shows and see people who sets up two tables at the gun show with a mix of tactical gear and weapons from his private collection. But doesn't do background checks.

You can accuse me of lying, that's fine. I don't care what you think. In some areas people without FFL's set up booths at gunshows selling weapons.

[Duckhunter935]

107. Indeed they can

That can also do that elswhere, it is not limited to gun shows. It is the private sale exemption and it says nothing about gun shows. It is covered under state laws.

[pablo_marmol]

127. "You can accuse me of lying, that's fine. I don't care what you think."

Last edited Mon Jan 18, 2016, 05:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Translation: I'm entitled to my own set of facts. Don't disturb my reverie with demonstrable truth. I enjoy going through life with blinders on, thank you.

What really proves that the non-existent "gun show loophole" is pure culture war is that crime stats have PROVEN that only a VERY small percentage of crime guns were purchased at gun shows. And even then, I'm not sure if the stats are dealing with guns originally purchased at a gun show, or purchased by the criminal.

Here are the facts about crime guns & gun shows --- meticulously cited. (Just try to dismiss this info. due to the source it comes from. These are reliable stats from U.S. government agencies with no agenda to push.)

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

[pablo_marmol]

131. Please proceed to flail and fail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1305838

[vkkv]

27. Not exactly Duckhunter, in some states, if background checks are not completed in THREE DAYS

the dealer can release the weapon to the buyer - is how I understand it from the articles below. California where I live has a 10 day waiting period on all firearms and one cannot buy more than one handgun per month, long guns are unlimited.


See::

Our current background check system allows a clock to run out: when three days have passed, even if a background check isn't complete, a dealer is allowed to make the sale, meaning dangerous people are able to get their hands on guns. This is a deadly flaw in the system that the gun lobby has fought to protect – but when lives are at stake, this shouldn't be a game. If you don't pass a background check, you should not pass go and you should not be able to collect a gun.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/everytown-statement-on-fbi-news-that-charleston-shooters-background-check-was-incomplete-300111836.html

Also see::

1. Private Sales: The single largest gap in the federal background check requirement is that unlicensed, private sellers are not required to conduct background checks. As a result, convicted felons and other ineligible people are able to easily buy guns in most states nationwide. This issue is addressed in detail in our summary on Universal Background Checks & the Private Sale Loophole.
Jult 13, 2015 http://smartgunlaws.org/background-check-procedures-policy-summary/

Also see::

WASHINGTON — The man accused of killing nine people in a historically black church in South Carolina last month was able to buy the gun used in the attack because of a breakdown in the federal gun background check system, the F.B.I. said Friday.
Mr. Roof exploited the three-day waiting time that has allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used in crimes, according to court records and government documents.

The Department of Justice’s inspector general has been investigating the three-day loophole for some time, Mr. Comey said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html?_r=0

[Duckhunter935]

38. yes that is the option of the dealer

And I expect those numbers are very low. I know mine comes back in under 5 minutes. And some states do require UBC within their state.

[Igel]

57. The three-day waiting time is the time the government has to return results of the check.

It's not the case that the dealer can take the purchase and chuck it in the drawer then 72 hours later say, "Oh, gee. Look, the 3-day limit's expired."

Roof's background check wasn't finished by the regulatory agency in the prescribed time. Therefore the dealer had the option of completing the sale or waiting.

Think of it as a penalty for the government's screwing up. Otherwise it would be possible to underfund or instruct the agency to hold up specific background checks or all background checks. "Sorry, you can't buy this gun. There's a 9-month background check backlog." That imposed a de facto burden that the legislators wouldn't have the guts to impose de jure.

[vkkv]

59. Roof's background check wasn't finished by the regulatory agency in the prescribed time...

""Roof's background check wasn't finished by the regulatory agency in the prescribed time (insert: just say it, in three days) . Therefore the dealer had the option of completing the sale or waiting. ""

That's exactly WHAT I'm saying - and it's wrong. In Calif., we get by just fine waiting 10 days.

Aren't we SUPPOSED to be making sure guns DO NOT get in the wrong hands?? Oooph!

I want to be able to KEEP my long-guns, not have them made illegal because other gun owners are looney.

[Duckhunter935]

63. 10 days worked real well

in San Bernardino and Isla Vista

3 days would work fine if the law enforcement agencies did their job.

[Travis_0004]

82. 3 days worked fine in 1994 when the law was written?

There is no reason the government can not get it done in 3 days with todays technology. Maybe somebody better start working on the weekeends.

When the law was first drafed there was no 3 day rule. It became obvious that something was needed so the government could not refuse to do a check and ban all purchases. 3 days was deemed sufficent in 1994.

[DashOneBravo]

79. That's the gun show loop hole

Private sales. People who set up booths and sell from their collection.

You were careful to include the first sentence but you neglected to say that private sales don't require they check that it's the same state.

[pablo_marmol]

91. Nope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141303423#post90

[Duckhunter935]

98. this

[pablo_marmol]

129. Even some supporters of gun restriction are dumping your talking point.

Even some authors on liberal websites have conceded that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". Still, they get in wrong by calling it a "private sales loophole". Since private sales sans background checks are expressly allowed in the majority of states, there is no 'work around' taking place. If you drive 55 miles per hr. in a 55 mph zone are you accused of exploiting the "55 mph loophole"? The analogy is perfectly fair.......and demonstrates how stunningly stupid we sound to a large number of citizens.


The long version: For one, the "gun show loophole" is a terrible name. The better way to look at it is a private sales loophole: If someone purchases a gun from a private seller, such as a collector, friend, or family member, no gun background check is required. This is well-known as the "gun show loophole" because these types of private sellers can be found at gun shows. But licensed dealers at gun shows still have to carry out background checks. The actual loophole is that someone can meet with a private seller at a gun show — or, increasingly, over the internet — and buy a firearm from that person without a background check. In other words, the gun show doesn't create a loophole; the private sale does.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10723230/obama-gun-show-loophole

[Recursion]

84. People dislike the name because it's not a "loophole" and has nothing to do with gun shows

It's not like Congress forgot a technicality when they wrote the laws; it's that a law that attempted to keep me from selling my shotgun at a garage sale wouldn't stand up in court. And there's no legal difference between gun shows and anywhere else, other than that in some states it's harder to legally sell a gun at a gun show than somewhere else.

[DashOneBravo]

89. Horseshit

Last edited Tue Jan 5, 2016, 04:38 AM - Edit history (1)

It's a loop hole at gun shows.

[Recursion]

93. Horseshit

It has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows. Zero.

If you care about this, why not bother to learn the actual laws?

[DashOneBravo]

105. You claim to be a Marine

so I'll be direct. It's actually pretty simple.


Gun show loophole = people who don't have FFL setting up tables and selling weapons.

[Duckhunter935]

108. simply wrong in your description

It can be at a gun show or anywhere else, it is the private sale exemption. Don't get so worked up. It is not a loophole and sales can happen anywhere within the state.

[Recursion]

109. Glad you've come around to agreeing with me

It has nothing to do with gun shows. Non-licensed sellers face the same laws everywhere.

[Duckhunter935]

97. that is horseshit

It does not have a thing to do with gun shows and you are wrong

Link to the provision in the law that says gun shows are exempt and I will take this back.

I will not have to because it does not say it

[DashOneBravo]

104. I don't have to link

Cause I don't give a shit what you think.

[Duckhunter935]

106. it is also because I am correct

And you are not. Have a wonderful day.

[pablo_marmol]

135. "Cause I don't give a shit what you think."

Translation: I'm entitled to my own set of facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1305838

[pablo_marmol]

130. Yeah......too bad, so sad. The horseshit comes from you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1305838

[DashOneBravo]

141. I never said it was a good name

You guys like to dismiss any non-gun person over terminology. That doesn't work with me because I've got some time behind a trigger. And been to tons of gun shows.

It's name is used to describe private sellers who don't do background checks. It's perfectly legal. There are also the same guys at different gun show still selling their private collection.

[pablo_marmol]

144. "You guys like to dismiss any non-gun person over terminology."

False. We like to point out how abuses w/regard to terminology by pro-restriction supporters are used purposefully to muddy the waters of debate, or suit their dishonest agendas.

That doesn't work with me because I've got some time behind a trigger. And been to tons of gun shows.

Blah.....blah.....blah. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't even utter the words "gun show loophole".

[DashOneBravo]

149. Feel free to go check.

You should go to a couple because gun shows are fun. Despite what Hoyt said, its not all white racists.

[pablo_marmol]

150. What the hell are you talking about?

Not that I want to continue with this line of conversation, but you didn't address anything I actually said, then assumed that I've never been to a gun show. (been to plenty)

C-YA

[Duckhunter935]

153. truth matters and

Huntsville show loophole just is not true. It is not a loophole and gun shows are not the only place private sales happen. They say this on purpose to convince the uninformed. Just like Internet sales of weapons. Is a background check required? The mass of uninformed people will think so.

[Hoyt]

28. If you are not a "dealer" because you only sell on occassion, you can still drape a confederate flag

Last edited Tue Jan 5, 2016, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

a table and sell gunz at gun shows under current law. You just cant do it often enough to be a "dealer." Why do gunners deny that?

[Duckhunter935]

39. nobody denies

Private sales within a state can happen between two individuals that reside in that state that are not dealers.

[Hoyt]

71. You can set up a table at a gun show and sell to yahoos who can't pass a background check.

Just don't do it too often. Sorry, but that is a loophole that gunners use to profit off their lethal weapons.

[GGJohn]

73. It's not as easy as that Hoyt,

there are lots of local cops and ATF agents at gun shows looking for just such illegal activities.

Sorry, but that is a loophole that gunners use to profit off their lethal weapons.

LOL, more comedy gold.

[Hoyt]

76. GG, it is not illegal if you don't do it often enough to be deemed a dealer. I could go to a gun

show this weekend, rent a table, and sell some of your gunz. But I wouldn't want to deal with the folks attracted to the dang things.

[GGJohn]

77. Reading comprehension is your friend Hoyt.

I said it's not that easy as you make it out to be, there are plenty of undercover cops and ATF agents looking for such illegal activities, such as selling to prohibited persons, and don't think those LEO's don't know what to look for, they do.

[Hoyt]

95. Fact is, it is not illegal for anyone to do what I just said. It's actually pretty easy. Rent a

table, lay the gunz out on the table so they look really sexy/lethal, and sell away. As a non-dealer, selling gunz, one doesn't have to do a background check as long as one doesn't sell gunz on a regular basis -- because that occasional gun trafficker is not considered a "dealer." Then, if you need to sell a few gunz and don't want it to count toward being a "dealer," you can go to the parking lot, run an ad and meet person to person, etc.

[GGJohn]

99. You obviously haven't been to too many gun shows Hoyt. eom.

[Hoyt]

111. Been to enough to know attendees are mostly white wingers with a lot of hatred.

[trillion]

122. .

[Duckhunter935]

126. I wish we could treat guns like cars

Very cheap liability insurance, NRA will love you. Can purchase from anyone from any state with no background check. 50 state reciprocity. No insurance required to own one. Sell over the internet. Buy over the internet. Want me to continue....

[trillion]

145. I'm for universal background checks with no loopholes.

And, I found it hilarious that the gunnuts haven't figured out yet that his is an internet loophole closer for internet sales not having background checks. This affects major gun sales. The gun lobby is po'd badly over this. Obama chose his move very well. Anyway, Democracynow.org covered it this week and had a guy from the gun lobby and a constitutional attorney examine this and it's a huge deal because of how much gun sales it affects. I'm very glad president Obama made his move so well. If you don't like background checks, it's too bad for you because this moves us much closer to getting them for all sales.

[Duckhunter935]

148. I see you did not answer my question

There is no Internet loophole. I have purchased several weapons over the internet. I had to have them shipped to an FFL everything and go through a background check. The law allows the states to cover sales between two persons residing in the same state. That is not a loophole. By the way I am for UBC, but the details are important. Can I loan a rifle or shotgun to a person for the weekend for hunting or a day at the range with no background check. Why does the president not push for NICS to be open for private sales? It is now prohibited even if a person wanted to be able to use it.

[Duckhunter935]

3. not worried

If he does anything it will be enforcing existing laws. So nothing will change. Good optics for him though.

[lancer78]

80. But bad optics for the

Dem nominee in the general (maybe).

[pablo_marmol]

92. Could be.

We've proven that we're very capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Very few liberals are willing to as much as consider the possibility that we do tremendous damage to our causes with prevarications relating to the gun violence issue.

[elmac]

5. Pres Clinton cut the number of Dealer FFL's issued

the rules were and I believe still are that you must have a physical storefront open a certain amount of hours to the public. These rules will need to be changed if they plan on expanding licensing for casual sellers. Will be interesting to see if they modernize licensing to include online or gun show sales or to issue a separate licence for non brick & mortar.

They do have a separate licence for collectors called the curio & relic license where firearms categorized as collectible or are at least 50 years old can be purchased and shipped right to your home. Records are kept and selling your firearms too soon after purchase, especially for profit, is against the rules but some do it as an easy way to make a little $$ without a dealer FFL.

[Duckhunter935]

7. online sales that cross state lines

Require the firearm to be shipped to an FFL and background to be performed. I have purchased several this way. All dealers even at gun shows must by federal law perform NICS checks. Transactions between two people within the state are in to state law if not a dealer.

[elmac]

21. I undersatand but a non licensee can purchase local from a yard sale, a friend, ect...

and ship anywhere without an FFL as long as the buyer has or uses a dealer FFL. The unlicensed seller is selling for profit without an FFL. This won't change unless they make a dealer FFL that is easier to obtain for the casual seller. It still ends up being registered but I think that is one of the loopholes he wants to close.

[Duckhunter935]

25. if that person ships out of state

Even you admit it must be shipped per existing federal law to an FFL, a dealer. A federal background check must be performed before transfer to the end buyer.

One more thing, the seller can not legally sell to an out of state person even if they are within the same state without going through an FFL in the buyers home state.

[onehandle]

6. Homeland Security will be replacing the F in ATF sooner than gun humpers think.

It's in the works already.

What Second Amendment?

[vkkv]

8. To what, Alcohol, Tobacco and Forearms?

Please explain your post more clearly.

I'm all for getting rid of handguns and large capacity semi-auto rifle magazines... but even handguns will never be outlawed unfortunately.

Slow bolt-action rifles and shotguns are fine with me.

[Duckhunter935]

10. bolt and pump action are

Not that slow. Do you confiscate the near a billion magazines out there? What is high capacity, to me over 20 rounds can be.

[vkkv]

17. I see little reason for more than a five round magazine.

Lot's Ruger 10/22s out there I know, I have two.. But ARs seem mighty unnecessarty for sport, hunting, target..

Pumps.. faster than bolt for me.

I just wish handguns would go away.

[Duckhunter935]

20. why the AR

Is one of the best platforms out there. Modular lightweight, accurate with fast follow up shots to limit possible suffering to animals. That is why common sense is out the window with people like you, it is my way only, nothing somewhere in the middle.

[GGJohn]

22. The AR platform is an exceptional hunting rifle,

my AR-10 is chambered in .308, which is a very good hunting round for deer, elk, etc, I can swiftly change the upper receiver to shoot the .223 round, which is ideal for smaller game and predators.

FYI, handguns are never going to go away.

[vkkv]

33. I have a right to express my opinion and vote accordingly given the opportunity -

I don't expect to WIN every argument on any issue. I personally would LOVE to see handguns disappear. They are too easy to conceal and are mis-handled to easily causing accidents. ARs should be left to the military. The military can out-firepower any AR owner, no PROBLEM!

I'm not saying that this is anyone here at D.U., but IMHO; anyone who says that they need rapid firearms to protect themselves from the government is not mentally fit to OWN firearms. As if you are REALLY going to fight up against the gov't.. sheesh, good luck with that.

My Browning 12 ga BPS, bolt-action five round magazine CZs and Ruger long guns are fine enough... and plenty.

The extremist gun owners are making other gun owners look really bad.

[GGJohn]

37. My firearms are NOT for fighting the govt, that's just ludicrous.

AR's are not military weapons, they're semi auto rifles that operate the same exact way my semi auto .22 does, the military uses the M-16/M-4, which are select fire rifles.

My AR platform rifle is equipped to accept the AZ legal 5 round mag for hunting, when it's in the .223 mode, I can use either the 5 round mag for hunting small game, or I can insert a 20 or 30 round mag for target shooting, it really is a remarkable platform.

I have 5 safes full of firearms and ammo, most of those firearms are of historical value and are very rarely fired, I just enjoy collecting firearms with history behind them.

[Duckhunter935]

41. my AR style rifles

Are not for fighting the government. They are not military spec and are just semi-automatic rifles. I do have full military spec bolt ation rifles. Some near 100 years old. Great shooters.

[pablo_marmol]

134. "I have a right to express my opinion..........."

True, but tragically for you, you also seem to believe that you're entitled to your own set of facts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1305609

[jmowreader]

35. I'd say "high capacity" is more rounds than "standard capacity"

On a pistol, a standard capacity magazine is one where the baseplate contacts the magazine well when the magazine is locked in place.

A long gun not based on a military-issue firearm? The standard capacity for that gun is the "magazine capacity" specification of the gun's first listing in the Shooter's Bible.

A long gun based on a military-issue firearm, like an AR-15 or an AK? You'll find the magazine capacity for the rifle your gun is based on in Jane's Infantry Weapons.

[mwrguy]

13. How so?

[GGJohn]

15. Really?

How about a link for that claim?

What Second Amendment you ask?

You mean this Second Amendment?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[NutmegYankee]

58. President Obama:

"I get letters from responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time these tragedies happen; who share my belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms; and who share my belief we can protect that right while keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.

You must be frustrated with our awesome President.

[vkkv]

9. With snarky comments alone, I can see how one could get up to over 104 thousand posts

within a few years..

Does it help the conversation?
Probably not.

[Duckhunter935]

12. so true, lol

[Kang Colby]

16. Full fact sheet on the Executive Action here....

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

[Duckhunter935]

18. thanks

Looks mostly like common sense

[forest444]

23. Not a moment too soon.

This is the bold, proactive Barack Obama we elected (where were you after Sandy Hook, Navy Yard, and Charlotte!).

[Duckhunter935]

26. too bad it will have almost no effect

As we firearms owners have been saying for years, enforce existing laws. He is attempting to do that very thing. Problem is, all of the mass killings followed existing Kass and had background checks performed.

[Hoyt]

31. You may be right that it will take stronger action to get gunners to stop their perverse behavior.

[GGJohn]

32. LOLOLOLOLOL

Pure comedy gold.

[Hoyt]

34. Once again, excess in gun acquisition and gun promotion, as you have admitted to, is not helping

the situation.

[GGJohn]

40. Once again Hoyt, you're lying,

I have never promoted firearms, and as I've told you numerous times, the majority of my firearms are of historical value and not for shooting, so again, you have lied about me, AGAIN, so knock it off.

[petronius]

43. FYI...

On Mon Jan 4, 2016, 09:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

LOLOLOLOLOL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1303503

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

User should learn to reply with an actual reply, not this schoolyard stuff.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jan 4, 2016, 09:39 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This wasn't even worth an alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No. Just. No.

Leave.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, you have GOT to be kidding! Really?

Posting what is basically a laugh in no way whatsoever falls under the scope of disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

If you can't handle a ROFL smiley, don't post anything someone might laugh at.

What a ridiculous alert.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "schoolyard stuff" is what du is all about
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[GGJohn]

44. LOL,

now someone can't alert for 24 hours.

[Duckhunter935]

47. cool

[Duckhunter935]

45. guess someone can't alert for 24 hours

Wonder who that might be?

[vkkv]

55. Awww HOYT - did YOU send an ALERT for THAT ??? n/t, too risky...

[GGJohn]

56. You MIGHT want to either edit or delete this post,

you can be rest assured that it is being alerted on and I would hate to see you get a post hidden over him.

[Duckhunter935]

64. yep not worth it

I am fairly sure he alerted but I would also delete or edit

[onehandle]

74. Exactly right. Existing laws are ineffective.

Thanks for admitting that's the real problem.

Gun fetishists should fear the future.

[GGJohn]

75. ...

Gun fetishists should fear the future.

I laugh my ass off every time I read this tripe from you.
Thanks for the humor.

[crim son]

113. Reading this thread it appears

you find the whole subject of gun violence to be absolutely hilarious.

[GGJohn]

117. Then you need to improve your reading comprehension. eom.

[GGJohn]

29. Bold?

What's so bold about it?
It will change practically nothing, it's not going to stop criminals from obtaining firearms, it doesn't address the straw purchase issue, it certainly won't stop mass shootings, so how is this a bold move?

[forest444]

42. Politics, John, is the art of the possible.

I'm with you on every last word in your post (even the laughing man); but if Obama had tried to include that much in the order, how long do you think it would take the gun lobby and their far-right allies to have it blocked in the Filth Circuit and/or the Supreme Court? This, at least, has a chance of being upheld.

[GGJohn]

46. Don't get me wrong,

I support these measures, weak as they are, but they won't, in no way, infringe upon the lawful citizen from purchasing or possessing firearms.

[Duckhunter935]

48. and are not the big bold moves

That are portrayed on the news and by some here.

[GGJohn]

49. Yup, now just watch MDA, Brady Org., MAIG, VPC, etc

blow this waaaay out of proportion and claim it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[beevul]

110. They wont.

That would mean having to shut up and act satisfied for some length of time.


I think you'll be hearing a mix of "its a good start" and "He should have done more but the nra..." and the like.

[forest444]

51. No doubt about it.

It's a sad commentary on our times that this is all a sitting President of the United States can include in an executive order dealing with a ongoing security crisis of this magnitude.

I'm glad he signed this order, and wish he had done so after the legislation died Congress after Sandy Hook. But it should be a mere starting point, not a Hail Mary pass for the sake of being able to get something done.

[Duckhunter935]

54. yep, why did he not do this

3 years ago?

[forest444]

61. That's what I want to know!

Many Presidents over the years later admit to being micromanaged and overhandled by their political advisers. This obsession with hesitating form doing anything (even weak tea stuff) that might ever come back to bite them in the butt (mostly from people who hate them anyway) needs to go.

Still, I'm glad he finally did something - anything - even if it's far from comprehensive in scope. God knows the teahadists weren't even if we had lost 1,000 children or more in a single incident.

[Kang Colby]

60. Well...keep in mind

On Edit: 41P removes the CLEO sign off. I was incorrect originally.


Overall, this could have been a lot worse. I was expecting more George H.W. Bush import bans and 922r style junk. The funny thing (or sad) is that most of this stuff has been in the works for years, it's just being packaged up in a little bow to appease the gun control crowd. In fact, I do agree with several of these items, such as enforce existing laws, focus on mental health, fix NICS, and better staff NICS. And...I am an NRA member. The NRA has being saying much of what's said in this EA for many years.

[forest444]

70. Sounds like a quiltwork of standards in dire need of not just updating, but nationalization

If gun laws can be avoided, even if in part, by "moving to a county with a 2A friendly CLEO," that's a problem. It looks like a loophole you can drive a pick-up truck across - gun rack, Confederate flag decal, and "Where's the Birth Certificate" bumper sticker and all.

You're obviously very knowledgeable on the subject, and your caveats make sense. I'm certainly with you on your last sentence - but with this doubt: how does the President intend to better staff and otherwise strengthen the national background check system with a Congress than will shoot down any spending bill with the word 'gun' on it (unless it's to buy or subsidize more of them, of course).

[Kang Colby]

72. Not exactly.

ON EDIT: 41P removes the CLEO sign off requirement. The point I made below was incorrect and not a concern.


It's not the gun laws that can be avoided with NFA, the National Firearms Act is nationalization. The issue with it, is that sometimes you will meet a police chief or sheriff that feels like they can just make up their own laws....like "why would a black man need a suppressor?...I'm not signing that!" What we've seen many, many times in the past are NFA transfers that are allowed by both state and Federal law be refused by CLEOs for no reason other than, "you don't need that and I don't sign those." It has nothing to do with background checks as those are required 100% of the time with NFA transfers regardless of who you buy them from.

I can't speak for Republicans, but I imagine they would support funding for mental health and NICS staff....surely with some strings attached.

[forest444]

78. So what we have is a case of excessive latitude and runaway CLEOs.

In a minimally functional society, of course, anyone caught using pretexts like those to selectively enforce gun laws depending on your skin color or how many cousins you have in common, would be subject to dismissal and/or prosecution. Thank you for confirming what I had suspected; but had never had anyone confirm so clearly and graphically.

As for the funding issue, that kind of good judgment might have been what we could have expected from Republicans in the Nixon or Reagan years; but among today's fanatical hate group known as the GOP, "funding for NICS staff" is fighting words.

Thanks again for your insights, Kang Colby. All the best to you and yours for 2016.

[Kang Colby]

81. Thank you for the kind words.

Happy New Year.

[Kang Colby]

100. FYI...

I was incorrect. 41P removes the CLEO sign off requirement. So that is no longer an issue.

[UncleTomsEvilBrother]

50. Is the laughing emoticon really necessary?

Your language is textbook NRA/wing nut. This EO never claimed it was going to solve the problem, but it is meant to address the problem. Anybody who is in politics knows why this move is a bold one during an election year.

By the way, rape laws don't stop rapists. Children still manage to drink and smoke even after the age limit was raised. We all have the right to vote according to the Constitution, and you see what regulations have done to prevent that for some citizens.

This EO will at least have measures in place to address gun violence.

[Duckhunter935]

52. problem is

They really will not and some of us know it. That is why the emoji is appropriate. But anything I guess is a good thing. The insults also do not help your case in my opinion.

[GGJohn]

53. "Is the laughing emoticon really necessary?"

I believe it is, and your language is textbook controller language.

The emoticon was directed at those, some here and the MSM, who are touting this as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Those EO's or EA's will do nothing to address the firearm violence in this country, that's a plain, brutal fact.

[AngryOldDem]

94. Good question.

What took him so long? He had ample opportunity during his terms to do this, and plenty of reasons why.

Yet, he does this now as he's virtually on his way out the door and will leave the inevitable blowback for the party and nominee to weather.

Yes, yes, I know -- some action is better than no action. I just question the timing and the fortitude, is all.

[DustyJoe]

62. numbers

I wonder if any public or private entity has a verified number of guns used in the last 8 years high profile shooting on how many shooters used guns bought by the shooter from a gun show from one of these 'loophole' dealers or not ?

I have a pretty confident feeling this number would be -zero-

They must have a number somewhere dealing with these loophole guns and crimes committed with them to jump through so many hoops to close a loophole that in reality doesn't exist.

[Duckhunter935]

66. every incident I have seen is

they were legally obtained after a background check with two exceptions, one murdered his mom and the other the feds failed to complete the background check in the required tree days and the dealer exercised the option of a sale. If the check eventually came back denied they were to recover the weapon from the prohibited person.

[Skittles]

67. don't worry

they're not coming for your guns

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/bbc-host-stumps-open-carry-gun-advocate-whose-response-to-mass-shootings-is-to-arm-good-guys/

[vkkv]

85. Why are you here?

[vkkv]

87. Oh look, Only 100 thousand non-sensical posts and I CAN BE RIGHT THERE with YOU!!

[vkkv]

88. Don't YOU live in Texas Skittles? Surely, you MUST relate!

In an interview with a BBC Five Live host, the president of gun advocacy group Open Carry Texas defended his state’s newly liberalized gun laws and said the only way to stop mass shootings is to put more guns on the street.

From the link YOU provided::

"""""""""

In an interview with a BBC Five Live host, the president of gun advocacy group Open Carry Texas defended his state’s newly liberalized gun laws and said the only way to stop mass shootings is to put more guns on the street.

According to C.J. Grisham, the U.S. has plenty of gun laws on the books, but added, “You can pass all the background checks you want, but a criminal gang member in Chicago isn’t going to run a background check on another gang member.”

Grisham was then interrupted by the host who asked, “Sorry. How many of the mass college shootings were carried out by criminal gang members?”

“Well they were all carried out by criminals, not licensed carriers,” Grisham replied, before being pressed if they were gang members.

“So how did those people manage to access the weaponry that led to all of those deaths then?” he was asked.

“Illegally,. That’s what I’m saying,” Grisham replied, before being asked, “How do you tighten that up then?”

“Well, you can’t stop all crime,’ he replied. “You tighten it up by getting rid of gun-free zones and allowing people to defend themselves no matter where they walk, no matter where they go, no matter where they study.”

“So, just to be clear, C.J.” he was asked, “The solution is actually having more guns in circulation in America. Therefore, when a Columbine happens, a teacher can open fire in a classroom against the assailant. So, guns in classrooms? You advocate that?”

“Well, there’s already guns in classrooms,” he parried. “It’s just that they’re in the hands of criminals and the good guys can’t defend themselves.”

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Umm, yeah..

[X_Digger]

65. So.. no actual change, just more enforcement of existing laws.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Having more ATF / FBI agents investigate NICS rejections is good, but it's not the wet dream that some claimed it would be.

[Duckhunter935]

68. if you look

that is for the 2017 budget REQUEST, do you think congress will actually fund them, lol

[X_Digger]

69. Yeah, I just finished reading the WH press release doublespeak.

It's like a great big fart on a naugahyde couch. Lots of noise, a little stink, little substance.

[vkkv]

86. You read it wrong - it is a change._________n/t

[X_Digger]

101. Feel free to actually point to the section in the above press release that is a real change.

And identify what it was before v what it is now.

I'll wait.

[vkkv]

120. Here you go! This is right up your alley:: Fox News digest

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/obama-executive-action-on-guns-to-require-background-checks-for-more-sales.html


Happy now ?!?!?!

Zzzzzzzzzz

[X_Digger]

121. Nope. Anyone 'in the business of' is ALREADY required to have a FFL. Try again. n/t

[vkkv]

124. "In the business"..... Welcome to my ignore list.

[X_Digger]

125. For those who refuse to put their heads in the sand (unlike dear vkkv here)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

It's already illegal to "engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce;" without a license.

All transfers between the public and an FFL requires a background check. (FFLs can transfer between themselves with different requirements.)

[pablo_marmol]

133. "Welcome to my ignore list."

Translation: I can't deal with the content of your argument, so I'm taking my toy trucks and going home.

[X_Digger]

119. Still waiting. n/t

[Javaman]

102. I bet this works just as well as his presidential order to close gitmo. nt

[workinclasszero]

112. Good timing Mr President

as armed white radical terrorists take over public lands by force of arms.

[Duppers]

114. Great!

113 replies in thread so far yet I cannot see 90% of them. Lol.

[Duckhunter935]

115. I am so glad I am not so afraid

Of a discussion I have hide from it. I am proud I have nobody hidden.

[trillion]

132. Oh you haven't met DU trolls yet? Some people you just gotta hide or they hijack whole threads and

you can't get to the meaningful comments. Just saying.

[Duckhunter935]

139. I see lots of posts and people

I disagree with. I do not call them trolls, MIRT does a great job with those. I feel a good response is much better then putting my head in the sand and hiding.

[wordpix]

116. should have been done long ago but better late than never

[NobodyHere]

118. So how much will this decrease gun violence by?

[trillion]

123. .

[trillion]

128. Democracynow.org has a good discussion on this today on their daily show.

It's the internet loophole that Obama is trying to close and it's huge. He wants to make all gun sales on the internet require a background check and it comes with a prison sentence and 200k fine if the person doesn't do one before selling a gun online. It's a an awesome move from the Obama administration and the gunnuts are psycho at having it. The truth is many of the gunnuts have felonies ( and I mean a whole lot of this group) and won't be able to buy when the background check loop holes are closed. Many of them also won't be able to own a gun if we get mandatory mental health requirements to report medications they are on that should disqualify them from having a gun as well as being in a house with someone elses gun's who don't keep them locked in a gun safe.

We will get there. Closing the internet loophole is a major move in the right direction.

[pablo_marmol]

136. The dead giveaway that the "gun show loophole" is pure culture war:

What really proves that the non-existent "gun show loophole" is pure culture war is that crime stats have PROVEN that only a VERY small percentage of crime guns were purchased at gun shows. And even then, I'm not sure if the stats are dealing with guns originally purchased at a gun show, or purchased by the criminal.

Here are the facts about crime guns & gun shows --- meticulously cited. (Just try to dismiss this info. due to the source it comes from. These are reliable stats from U.S. government agencies with no agenda to push.)

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

And again --- anyone who believes that there's not a huge political cost to be paid for our continuous, brazen unapologetic lying is excruciatingly naive.

[trillion]

137. Actually, this law closes the internet loophole and a whole lot of guns are being sold on the

internet without background checks. The Obama Administration went for a large target on this one.
This will help with the ultimate goal of regulation that will include mental health checks and keeping a database to flag when people becpme ineligible to have a gun - they commit a felony, are mentally not safe, or are on medication that makes them unsafe, or live in a house with people who shouldn't have access to guns.
The aurora shooter bought his guns online. This plus mental health checks would have helped that not happen.

Here's how I see it is going - first get the mandatory checks in and close all loop holes for buying guns without checks. Then build the database infrastructure for what will be checked and get it to be a live database that is scanned by the minute to tell law enforcement to remove guns from someone who becomes ineligible. As soon as there are mandatory checks - routine up to date checks will just be something we go to and not laws we have to pass. We'll likely have to get a few more laws on what is checked in the database, but a few more gunnut events like sandy hook and there will be a carte blanche for it. Especially if the shooting spree happens by Muslims or another minority. A Terrorist event will get what checked for into the database - heck it could be written in with the next update on the patriot acts.

[Duckhunter935]

140. what Internet loophole?

Another untrue statement. I have purchased several weapons over the internet. Each one had to be shipped to an FFL and background check completed. You would be referring to a sake between two persons residing in the same state. Just like newspaper ads a few Internet sites can be used by sellers to find buyers, but if shipped across a srate line, they must be shipped to an FFL . Is there a newspaper loophole, lol

[pablo_marmol]

143. No end to the ignorance is there, Duckhunter?

[trillion]

146. So, you don't know anything about this law and the internet. Got it.

And if you had ever head of it, you wouldn't have fallen right to legal gun sales. You actually have no concept what-so-ever what internet and gun shows as related to internet has to do with anything in this.

Well, certainly nothing for you to look in to here. Carry on. On behalf of the pro gun control movement - Thank you.

[trillion]

138. "culture war" on what culture?

[pablo_marmol]

142. Gun owners --- and there's a LOT of them who don't like being equated with criminals.......

........called infantile names, etc.

I really needed to explain that?! The incessant lying from Democrats is much more costly than gun restriction supporters will ever understand, due to the fact that they'll never admit to the brashness of our dishonesty.

[trillion]

147. There is a war on the culture of gun owners?

From the looks of that culture by articles posted on this site, it's best if we win that war. I would say there is a war on kids by who's actually dying over that war though.

[pablo_marmol]

151. "I would say there is a war on kids by who's actually dying over that war though."

Please do ignore the fact that the murder rate has been dropping since '93 while the gun stock has been rocketing. So there are fewer of the "dying kids" you're referring to every year.......yet you wouldn't know it from our hysteria.

The best way for Dems to "win this war" is to STOP LYING. Even if we can accomplish that - which I believe is doubtful - the damage we've done to our credibility on the gun violence issue will take at least a generation to recover from.......if that short a period. The real tragedy is that our lies re. "common sense gun control" has hurt our cred generally. All of the bogeymen we've been shrieking about for decades now have caused citizen to doubt us on critical issues like global warming etc.

There is a war on the culture of gun owners?

If you have to ask this question, it's doubtful any response would suit you -- so yes.....there is absolutely culture war directed at gun owners. As well as filthy culture war directed as rural people generally. You're going to say with a straight face that "progressives" aren't fond of poking fun at "rednecks" and "toothless hicks"?! Seriously?!

I think this line of conversation has run it's course.

[trillion]

154. Can you site this "Lying" you keep accusing dems of doing?

[pablo_marmol]

155. You meant to say 'cite', of course.

There's a very long list of bogeyman that Dems have screeched about over the years -- I imagine that many can add to my hastily dashed off list.

** "plastic guns" that can evade airport screening

** "cop killer bullets"

** "gun show loophole"

** "assault weapons"

** generally, non-sensical feel good/ineffective "common sense" measures such as ballistic fingerprinting.

All of these, and others, have been discussed ad infinitum in "The Gungeon". If you're honestly looking to expand your knowledge - and I actually don't believe that you are - you could purchase and read 'Targeting Guns' by award-winning liberal criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck. Or 'Under the Gun' and 'Armed and Considered Dangerous' by liberal criminologists James Wright & Peter Rossi. Or 'Restricting Handguns -- The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out'.

[pablo_marmol]

156. Here's a great example, recently posted, of what I'm talking about.

Pure filth. Have the audacity to criticize a Democrat on the gun violence issue, and get asked if you'll vote GOP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=184373

Pro gun-rights Dems are treated to remarks like this day in/day out.